You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Original research
Type 2 diabetes mellitus and antibiotic-resistant infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. Rodrigo M Carrillo-Larco1,2,
  2. Cecilia Anza-Ramírez2,
  3. Giancarlo Saal-Zapata3,
  4. David Villarreal-Zegarra2,
  5. Jessica Hanae Zafra-Tanaka2,
  6. Cesar Ugarte-Gil4,5,6,
  7. Antonio Bernabé-Ortiz2,7
  1. 1 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College London School of Public Health, London, UK
  2. 2 CRONICAS Centre of Excellence in Chronic Diseases, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru
  3. 3 Hospital Nacional Guillermo Almenara Irigoyen – EsSalud, Lima, Peru
  4. 4 Facultad de Medicina Alberto Hurtado, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru
  5. 5 Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia Instituto de Medicina Tropical Alexander von Humboldt, Lima, Peru
  6. 6 Department of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  7. 7 Universidad Cientifica del Sur, Lima, Peru
  1. Correspondence to Dr Rodrigo M Carrillo-Larco, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College London School of Public Health, London W2 1PG, UK; rcarrill{at}ic.ac.uk

Abstract

Background Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been associated with infectious diseases; however, whether T2DM is associated with bacterial-resistant infections has not been thoroughly studied. We ascertained whether people with T2DM were more likely to experience resistant infections in comparison to T2DM-free individuals.

Methods Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis. The search was conducted in Medline, Embase and Global Health. We selected observational studies in which the outcome was resistant infections (any site), and the exposure was T2DM. We studied adult subjects who could have been selected from population-based or hospital-based studies. I2 was the metric of heterogeneity. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa risk of bias scale.

Results The search retrieved 3370 reports, 97 were studied in detail and 61 (449 247 subjects) were selected. Studies were mostly cross-sectional or case–control; several infection sites were studied, but mostly urinary tract and respiratory infections. The random-effects meta-analysis revealed that people with T2DM were twofold more likely to have urinary tract (OR=2.42; 95% CI 1.83 to 3.20; I2 19.1%) or respiratory (OR=2.35; 95% CI 1.49 to 3.69; I2 58.1%) resistant infections. Although evidence for other infection sites was heterogeneous, they consistently suggested that T2DM was associated with resistant infections.

Conclusions Compelling evidence suggests that people with T2DM are more likely to experience antibiotic-resistant urinary tract and respiratory infections. The evidence for other infection sites was less conclusive but pointed to the same overall conclusion. These results could guide empirical treatment for patients with T2DM and infections.

  • nutritional sciences
  • infections
  • public health
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2020-216029

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    With a large burden in terms of morbidity, mortality, disability and economic costs,1–4 type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a global health problem disproportionally affecting low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).1–4 While much of the research about T2DM has focused on its determinants, consequences and complications regarding non-communicable diseases, T2DM as a risk and prognostic factor for infectious—communicable—diseases has gained attention lately.5–8 In this relatively novel field—T2DM and infectious diseases—antibiotic resistance remains understudied, though it carries a large disease burden globally and in LMICs.9–13

    Large studies about T2DM and antibiotic resistance have focused on one pathogen or colonisation (rather than infection).14 Moreover, there appears to be discrepancies on whether T2DM is a risk factor for infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria depending on the infection site. For example, some authors have suggested that T2DM is not an independent risk factor for urinary tract infections with resistant bacteria;15 however, for community-acquired intra-abdominal infections, T2DM has been described as a potential risk factor.16

    The large burden of T2DM,1–4 paired with its potential role as a risk and prognostic factor for infectious diseases,5–8 along with the global issue of antibiotic resistance,9–13 call to thoroughly study whether people with T2DM are at higher risk of infections with resistant bacteria. This knowledge may guide empirical treatment, with a subsequent positive impact on T2DM patients who would recover faster from infections, while also reducing the burden of antibiotic-resistant bacteria by prescribing more accurate treatments. Consequently, to understand whether T2DM is a risk factor for infections with resistant bacteria, in comparison to non-resistant infections, and whether there are any differences depending on the infection site, we conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature and a random-effects meta-analysis.

    Methods

    Protocol

    We aimed to ascertain if people with T2DM, in comparison to otherwise healthy individuals, were more likely to experience a resistant infection rather than an infection with non-resistant bacteria. We hypothesised that, in comparison to T2DM-free individuals, people with T2DM who experience an infection, this is more likely to be an antibiotic-resistant infection. We conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis. The search strategies as well as the screening and selection processes were planned in advance and not modified afterwards. This manuscript adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations (online supplemental table 1).17

    Supplemental material

    Eligibility criteria

    The inclusion criteria were: (i) the original studies could have been conducted in the community (eg, population-based random sampling) or in healthcare facilities (eg, consecutive patients in a clinic); (ii) original studies followed an observational design with a comparison group (eg, cross-sectional, case–control or prospective/retrospective cohorts); (iii) among the study participants, there were people with T2DM and without T2DM (comparison group); and (iv) the outcome was an infection with an antibiotic-resistant bacteria, as defined by each original report. Only studies with adult subjects were included.

    The exclusion criteria were: (i) reports looking at colonisation with antibiotic-resistant bacteria (rather than infection) and (ii) research in which people with T2DM and other major or long-lasting conditions were studied, these included: neoplasms, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, bedridden, cerebral palsy, Alzheimer’s disease and vector-borne diseases (eg, malaria or dengue). We excluded these groups of patients because we targeted people with T2DM without any additional risk factors that could make them more likely to experience resistant infections. Studies looking at infections of viral aetiology were also excluded.

    Information sources

    We used OVID to search in Medline, Embase and Global Health. The search was conducted in February 2020. The search was restricted to studies with human beings; no further restrictions were included. The search terms we used are available in online supplemental table 2.

    Search and study selection

    The search results were downloaded to EndNote where duplicates were excluded. We then uploaded the results to Rayyan, an online open-access tool to conduct systematic reviews.18 Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers independently (RMC-L and AB-O); the same two reviewers studied the complete text of the reports selected in the screening phase. Discrepancies were solved by consensus between these two reviewers.

    Data collection

    Data from the selected reports were extracted by two groups of reviewers independently (CA-R and GS-Z as well as JHZ-T and DV-Z). Discrepancies were solved by consensus within and between these pairs of reviewers, or by consensus with a third party (RMC-L). We designed a data extraction form which was agreed on by consensus among all the reviewers; this form was not modified during data collation.

    The data extraction form included study characteristics (eg, year and country of data collection, whether population-based or hospital-based, and study design), and characteristics of the study population (eg, mean age, proportion of men and T2DM proportion). We also extracted information about the infection: infection site, as well as frequency of people with and without T2DM with a resistant infection; when available, we also collated information about the specific pathogens studied and antibiotics tested. When original studies reported an association metric (and not only proportions), we extracted those as presented in the reports (eg, OR, prevalence ratio or risk ratio). Of note, the meta-analysis is based on adjusted association metrics only; these were prioritised over unadjusted estimates because adjusted estimates would reflect solid and less biased evidence.

    Risk of bias in individual studies

    We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, a tool to assess quality of non-randomised studies.19 For case–control and cohort studies, we used the specific scales for these study designs. For cross-sectional studies, however, we used the same scale as for cohort studies applying all relevant criteria. This tool ranks studies with stars, where the more stars the less risk of bias the study shows. This process was conducted by two reviewers independently (CA-R and GS-Z; JHZ-T and DV-Z), and discrepancies were solved by consensus among them or after further consideration with a third party (RMC-L).

    Synthesis of results

    First, we narratively presented the collated information for all the selected studies. Before data analysis, we decided to conduct a meta-analysis if there were at least four estimates per infection site (ie, at least four original publications or results). In the meta-analysis, we combined all study designs (cross-sectional, prospective and case–control studies), but only estimates of the same infection site (eg, urinary tract infections). We also combined estimates regardless of the specific bacteria or antibiotic studied. We only pooled adjusted estimates available in the original reports. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis in Stata V.15 (StrataCorp) with the DerSimonian and Laird method. Pooled estimates are reported as OR and 95% CIs. Because of the limited number of studies with similar specific characteristics, it was no possible to conduct subgroup analyses (eg, by resistant bacteria or community-based vs hospital-based studies); however, when possible, pooled estimates were reported separately by cross-sectional/cohort or case–control studies. Finally, the I2 was reported as a metric of heterogeneity. A priori, we expected heterogeneity across reports because they studied different populations, were conducted in unique settings, and followed different methods.

    Results

    Study characteristics

    The search yielded 3370 results, we screened 3341 and studied in detail 97 reports; finally, 61 (449 247 subjects) reports were included in the review (figure 1, tables 1 and 2). Reports were informed by data collected since 198920–2017.21 22 The studies were conducted in Argentina,16 Bangladesh,23 24 Belgium,25 Brazil,26 27 Canada,28 29 China,21 30–32 Egypt,33 Finland,34 France,35–37 Germany,37 Greece,38 Guyana,22 India,39 Italy,37 40 Israel,28 41–43 Japan,44 Korea,45 46 Madagascar,47 Nepal,48 Netherlands,15 Norway,49 Pakistan,50 Poland,51 Singapore,20 52 53 Spain,37 54–57 Sweden,34 58 USA,37 59–75 Taiwan76 77 and Thailand.78

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Study selection process. Depending on the outcome and subgroup analysis, the number of studies included in the meta-analysis varied. Therefore, the number of selected reports for quantitative synthesis is not reported in this figure but reported in the text.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Characteristics of cross-sectional and cohort reports

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Characteristics of case–control reports

    Evidence was mostly derived from cross-sectional (29 reports),16 20–22 25 28 30 31 33–38 40 44 47 48 52 53 60–65 76 77 and case–control (28 reports)15 23 24 27 32 39 41–43 45 46 49 50 54–58 66–75 78 studies; fewer followed a cohort (five reports)26 29 51 59 61 design (tables 1 and 2); of note one report contributed to both the cross-sectional and cohort count.61

    Infection sites reported varied among urinary tract (34 reports),15 20 23 26 28 30 33 36 38–41 43 45 47–49 53–55 57 62 63 65–67 69 70 74–78 respiratory (11 reports),21 24 28 31 32 37 46 64 68 69 78 skin and soft tissue (6 reports),22 34 52 59 60 62 intra-abdominal (2 reports),16 65 surgical wounds (2 reports)47 67 and ophthalmic (1 report)35 (table 3).

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Adjusted association estimates of antibiotic-resistant from cross-sectional and cohort reports

    Infections

    We report on adjusted association estimates as these were available in the original publications because these represent the most reliable and robust evidence (tables 3 and 4). Crude estimates and frequencies are available in online supplemental tables 3 and 4. Most studies reported that resistant infections were more frequent among people with T2DM in comparison to T2DM-free individuals; this observation was consistent across infection sites and study designs. Overall, regardless of the infection site, T2DM appears to be a risk factor for resistant infections (tables 3 and 4). Evidence to support this statement was weak only in a few studies as their estimates were not significant.15 34 45 Across infection sites, the comparison group was an infection with a non-resistant bacteria (rather than no infection or colonisation), except for two reports,42 50 where patients were colonised but did not develop an infection.

    View this table:
    Table 4

    Adjusted association estimates of antibiotic-resistant from case–control reports

    The association estimates from cross-sectional or cohort studies were as high as fivefold (OR=5.2, 95% CI 1.4 to 19.8) for surgical wounds, blood, urinary and respiratory tract or burn infections;47 other studies also reported a similar association estimate for urinary tract, skin or soft tissue infections (OR=5.1, 95% CI 2.1 to 18.6).62 On the other hand, the smallest estimate was 1.70 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.8) for community-acquired pneumonia.64

    The association estimates from case–control studies showed a similar pattern. The largest estimate showed an OR of 6.4 (95% CI 2.1 to 19.3) for respiratory, urinary, wound or bloodstream infections.69 At the other extreme, people with T2DM had 50% higher odds of a resistant urinary or bloodstream infection (OR=1.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8).70

    Meta-analysis

    We further elaborated on urinary tract infections because most studies addressed this condition. The pooled OR across 10 reports,15 30 43 45 49 53 66 75–77 supported the premise that people with T2DM were most likely to have a resistant infection in the urinary tract, rather than a non-resistant infection: OR=2.42 (95% CI 1.83 to 3.20; I2 19.1%; 3675 subjects). When only cross-sectional studies were pooled (all hospital-based), the summary estimate based on these four studies was30 53 76 77: OR=2.92 (95% CI 2.02 to 4.21; I2 00.0%; 1312 subjects); alternatively, when only case–control studies were pooled (all hospital-based), the summary estimate based on these six studies was15 43 45 49 66 75: OR=2.07 (95% CI 1.37 to 3.12; I2 30.3%; 2363 subjects). These reports analysed a range of bacteria and antibiotics, and consistently suggested that people with T2DM were most likely to experience a resistant infection in the urinary tract (tables 3 and 4), rather than a non-resistant infection.

    There were also at least four estimates to conduct a meta-analysis for respiratory tract infections.32 37 64 This analysis also suggested that people with T2DM showed higher odds of resistant infections: OR=2.35 (95% CI 1.49 to 3.69; I2 58.1%; 1637 subjects). It is noteworthy that one study64 contributed with two estimates from the same study population (375 subjects), thus it was considered twice for this meta-analysis. There were three cross-sectional hospital-based studies,37 64 and one case–control hospital-based study32; therefore, further stratification by study design was not possible. These reports analysed a range of bacteria and antibiotics, consistently suggesting that resistant infections were more likely in people with T2DM (tables 3 and 4). Overall, people with T2DM appear to be at higher risk of a resistant respiratory infection.

    Five estimates from the same study informed the pooled analysis for complicated skin infections: OR=0.98 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; I2 43.3%; 390 subjects). This was a cross-sectional hospital-based study, which analysed different antibiotics and bacteria (table 3).34 The available evidence is still inconclusive on whether people with T2DM have higher risk of complicated skin infections. Similarly, for other infection sites, it was not possible to reach strong conclusions or to conduct a meta-analysis, because the body of evidence was small or there was large heterogeneity (tables 3 and 4).

    Risk of bias

    On average, the summarised reports had 5.9 stars in the risk of bias assessment tool (online supplemental table 5), with just a few showing fewer than four stars mostly because some criteria did not apply for the study design, or information was not available or was unclear.20 28 38 48 52

    Discussion

    Summary of the evidence

    The evidence suggests that, in comparison to T2DM-free subjects, people with T2DM who acquire a urinary tract and respiratory infection, are more likely to experience a resistant infection. The evidence for other infection sites was less conclusive because of fewer reports and large heterogeneity in the outcomes. The body of evidence studying T2DM as an associated factor for resistant infections has increased, suggesting that researchers and practitioners find this topic relevant. This work has summarised and pooled available evidence and delivered strong conclusions about two infection sites, while signalling other infections sites that warrant further research.

    Pathways behind T2DM and resistant infections

    A comprehensive discussion on the immunological or pharmacological mechanisms involved in the association between T2DM and resistant infections is beyond the scope of this work. Nonetheless, we acknowledge that T2DM negatively interacts with the immune system and could be a risk factor for infections.79–83 In this line, other conditions related with T2DM, obesity for example, have been associated with an increased risk of infections due to the role of adipose tissue in the production of proinflammatory cytokines (tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL) 6, IL-1β, IL-18, monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)-1), proinflammatory adipokines and other inflammatory products;84 85 another point is the pharmacokinetics of antibiotics in obese population that can lead to suboptimal levels of antibiotic concentrations and increase the risk for antibiotic resistance.86

    Whether the impaired immune system is responsible for higher risk of resistant infections in people with T2DM, has not been studied to the best of our knowledge. Another pending question is whether the frequency with which people with T2DM visit clinics or hospitals is a risk factor for resistant infections. That is, people with T2DM have more contact with healthcare facilities because of regular control visits or other related complications. In these visits, they could acquire infections with in-hospital bacteria, perhaps more likely to be resistant.

    Public health and clinical practice implications

    The estimates herein summarised could inform clinical practice for people with T2DM. Our estimates support the fact that T2DM are more likely to have resistant infections, particularly urinary tract and respiratory infections. Empirical treatment for these infection sites in people with T2DM needs to be carefully thought; that is, the empirical treatment for the general population may not be the best option in people with T2DM. This does not imply starting treatment with a very powerful antibiotic, but to carefully consider available options and if possible, request an antibiotic sensitivity test to inform the empirical treatment choice.

    From a health economics perspective, treatment failure with a first-line antibiotic because of antibiotic resistance in people with T2DM would impose a large economic burden.10 87 These T2DM patients may need a second appointment with their medic, and start a different course of antibiotics; in the worst-case scenario, the infection could progress and develop some complication. These are additional costs for the health system or the patient.

    Resistant infections are a major concern in infectious diseases medicine. For example, the burden of resistant tuberculosis88 has received great attention, it is frequently monitored, and guides diagnosis and treatment allocation. Talking about resistant infections in the field of non-communicable diseases is new, yet some authors have already highlighted the links between communicable and non-communicable diseases.5–8 A surveillance system of antibiotic resistance profiles among people with T2DM could be implemented to identify the most dangerous bacteria, select the best treatment considering other concomitant risk factor such as obesity,86 and monitor trends of the resistance patterns in the T2DM community. An antibiotic resistance surveillance programme could inform local and international guidelines for infections in people with T2DM.

    There are clinical practice guidelines for diabetic food infections,89 which represent a great burden on T2DM patients. Guidelines for other infections in people with T2DM are less common. Although available guidelines, for example, those for urinary tract infections,90 91 acknowledge T2DM as a risk factor for asymptomatic bacteriuria or complicated infections, little is discussed about antibiotic resistance or tailored treatment choices for people with T2DM. Our work, accounting for its limitations, could be adopted by these guidelines to suggest some pragmatic approaches for people with T2DM. For example: (i) carefully contemplate the empirical treatment considering that the choices for the general population may not be ideal for T2DM patients or (ii) consider an antibiogram before starting any empirical treatment. Ideally, experimental studies would come to further strengthen—or reject—these suggestions for the benefit of T2DM patients. We advocate for a map of antibiotic-resistant profile in people with T2DM, at least for the urinary tract and respiratory infections, and diabetic foot infections.89 This evidence would have a positive impact on guiding empirical treatment for people with T2DM.

    It is worth noting that most of the original studies herein summarised were hospital-based or conducted with captive populations (eg, nursing homes). Whether the same findings would apply to the general population in community-based or population-based studies with implications in primary care, deserves further investigation.

    Limitations

    We conducted a comprehensive review following standard methods. However, there are also some limitations to acknowledge. First, it was not always specified whether the original studies referred to T2DM patients alone; that is, we cannot be certain that type 1 diabetes mellitus patients were fully excluded. However, because we focused on adults, in whom the overall prevalence of T2DM is the largest relative to other types of diabetes, it is reasonable to consider that only (or mostly) T2DM patients were studied. Second, in many studies the sample size was limited particularly when authors tried to look at specific subgroups. More comprehensive and larger research is needed in this field, particularly with other infection sites where evidence is much limited. Third, a consequence of a limited sample size is the lack of multivariable models. It was challenging to ascertain whether T2DM is an independent risk factor for resistant infections. Metabolic control as per HbA1c levels and hyperglycaemic status are relevant variables to account for.79–83 Future studies should include HbA1c and other variables. Fourth, original studies followed different designs and sampling frameworks. Electronic health records could provide a remarkable and timely opportunity to further explore the role of T2DM in resistant infections.

    Conclusions

    This systematic review and meta-analysis found evidence signalling that people with T2DM are more likely to experience resistant urinary tract and respiratory infections. Although the evidence for other infection sites was less conclusive, it already pinpoints that people with T2DM are more likely to have resistant infections regardless of the infection site. This evidence, along with clinical knowledge and decision-sharing, could guide empirical treatment for patients with T2DM and infections.

    What is already known on this subject

    • There is a growing body of evidence about diabetes as a risk factor for infectious diseases and antibiotic-resistant infections; however, there is great heterogeneity among individual reports and most studies included small samples. This sparse evidence limits our understanding of diabetes as a compelling risk factor for antibiotic-resistant infections.

    What this study adds

    • Diabetes appears to be a strong risk factor for antibiotic-resistant infections, particularly urinary tract and respiratory infections. Although evidence for other infection sites was limited, in terms of quantity, quality and with great heterogeneity, their findings already suggested that diabetes was associated with higher risk of resistant infections. This evidence could inform clinical guidelines for infectious diseases, with focus on people with diabetes, which is a large and growing proportion of the general population.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Ethics approval

    This is a review of published scientific information. This work did not study, directly, any human beings and was thus considered of low risk. We did not seek approval from an Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board. All authors had access to the collated data and are collectively responsible for the accuracy of the data, results interpretation and conclusions. All authors approved the submitted version. The funder had no role in the study design, analyses, interpretation or conclusions.

    References

    1. ↵
      2. Bommer C ,
      3. Sagalova V ,
      4. Heesemann E , et al
      . Global economic burden of diabetes in adults: projections from 2015 to 2030. Diabetes Care 2018;41:963–70.doi:10.2337/dc17-1962
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      2. Roth GA ,
      3. Abate D ,
      4. Abate KH , et al
      . Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality for 282 causes of death in 195 countries and territories, 1980-2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017. Lancet 2018;392:1736–88.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32203-7 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30496103
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    3. ↵
      2. Kyu HH ,
      3. Abate D ,
      4. Abate KH , et al
      . Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 359 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017. Lancet 2018;392:1859–922.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32335-3 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30415748
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC)
      . Worldwide trends in diabetes since 1980: a pooled analysis of 751 population-based studies with 4.4 million participants. Lancet 2016;387:1513–30.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00618-8 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27061677
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. ↵
      2. Dunachie S ,
      3. Chamnan P
      . The double burden of diabetes and global infection in low and middle-income countries. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2019;113:56–64.doi:10.1093/trstmh/try124
      OpenUrl
    6. ↵
      2. van Crevel R ,
      3. van de Vijver S ,
      4. Moore DAJ
      . The global diabetes epidemic: what does it mean for infectious diseases in tropical countries? Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017;5:457–68.doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30081-X pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27499355
      OpenUrlPubMed
    7. ↵
      2. Carrillo-Larco RM ,
      3. Altez-Fernandez C ,
      4. Ugarte-Gil C
      . Is diabetes associated with malaria and malaria severity? A systematic review of observational studies. Wellcome Open Res 2019;4:136.doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15467.3 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31976376
      OpenUrlPubMed
    8. ↵
      2. Htun NSN ,
      3. Odermatt P ,
      4. Eze IC , et al
      . Is diabetes a risk factor for a severe clinical presentation of dengue?--review and meta-analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2015;9:e0003741. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003741 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25909658
      OpenUrlPubMed
    9. ↵
      2. Cassini A ,
      3. Högberg LD ,
      4. Plachouras D , et al
      . Attributable deaths and disability-adjusted life-years caused by infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the EU and the European economic area in 2015: a population-level modelling analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2019;19:56–66.doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30605-4 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30409683
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      2. Naylor NR ,
      3. Atun R ,
      4. Zhu N , et al
      . Estimating the burden of antimicrobial resistance: a systematic literature review. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2018;7:58. doi:10.1186/s13756-018-0336-y pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29713465
      OpenUrlPubMed
    11. ↵
      2. Woolhouse M ,
      3. Waugh C ,
      4. Perry MR , et al
      . Global disease burden due to antibiotic resistance - state of the evidence. J Glob Health 2016;6:010306. doi:10.7189/jogh.06.010306 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27350872
      OpenUrlPubMed
    12. ↵
      2. Agudelo CI ,
      3. DeAntonio R ,
      4. Castañeda E
      . Streptococcus pneumoniae serotype 19A in Latin America and the Caribbean 2010-2015: a systematic review and a time series analysis. Vaccine 2018;36:4861–74.doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.06.068 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30005949
      OpenUrlPubMed
    13. ↵
      2. Camargo CM ,
      3. García A ,
      4. Riquelme A , et al
      . The problem of Helicobacter pylori resistance to antibiotics: a systematic review in Latin America. Am J Gastroenterol 2014;109:485–95.doi:10.1038/ajg.2014.24
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    14. ↵
      2. Stacey HJ ,
      3. Clements CS ,
      4. Welburn SC , et al
      . The prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among diabetic patients: a meta-analysis. Acta Diabetol 2019;56:907–21.doi:10.1007/s00592-019-01301-0
      OpenUrl
    15. ↵
      2. Vinken JEM ,
      3. Mol HE ,
      4. Verheij TJM , et al
      . Antimicrobial resistance in women with urinary tract infection in primary care: no relation with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Prim Care Diabetes 2018;12:80–6.doi:10.1016/j.pcd.2017.08.003 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28919055
      OpenUrlPubMed
    16. ↵
      2. Núñez SA ,
      3. Lacal V ,
      4. Núñez J , et al
      . Antibiotic resistance in community-acquired intra-abdominal infections: diabetes mellitus as a risk factor. Surg Infect 2020;21:62–8.doi:10.1089/sur.2019.032 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31441705
      OpenUrlPubMed
    17. ↵
      2. Moher D ,
      3. Liberati A ,
      4. Tetzlaff J , et al
      . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19621072
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      2. Ouzzani M ,
      3. Hammady H ,
      4. Fedorowicz Z , et al
      . Rayyan—a web and mobile APP for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016;5:210. doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
    19. ↵
      The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Available: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp [Accessed 5 Jul 2020].
    20. ↵
      2. Lye WC ,
      3. Chan RK ,
      4. Lee EJ , et al
      . Urinary tract infections in patients with diabetes mellitus. J Infect 1992;24:169–74.doi:10.1016/0163-4453(92)92876-K pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1569307
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      2. Liu B ,
      3. Yi H ,
      4. Fang J , et al
      . Antimicrobial resistance and risk factors for mortality of pneumonia caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae among diabetics: a retrospective study conducted in Shanghai, China. Infect Drug Resist 2019;12:1089–98.doi:10.2147/IDR.S199642 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31123410
      OpenUrlPubMed
    22. ↵
      2. Kurup R ,
      3. Ansari AA
      . A study to identify bacteriological profile and other risk factors among diabetic and non-diabetic foot ulcer patients in a Guyanese hospital setting. Diabetes Metab Syndr 2019;13:1871–6.doi:10.1016/j.dsx.2019.04.024
      OpenUrl
    23. ↵
      2. Jinnah F ,
      3. Islam MS ,
      4. Rumi MA , et al
      . Drug sensitivity pattern of E. coli causing urinary tract infection in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. J Int Med Res 1996;24:296–301.doi:10.1177/030006059602400310 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8725992
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. ↵
      2. Saibal MAA ,
      3. Rahman SHZ ,
      4. Nishat L , et al
      . Community acquired pneumonia in diabetic and non-diabetic hospitalized patients: presentation, causative pathogens and outcome. Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull 2012;38:98–103.doi:10.3329/bmrcb.v38i3.14336 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23540185
      OpenUrlPubMed
    25. ↵
      2. Libert M ,
      3. Elkholti M ,
      4. Massaut J , et al
      . Risk factors for meticillin resistance and outcome of Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection in a Belgian university hospital. J Hosp Infect 2008;68:17–24.doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2007.08.021 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17942190
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    26. ↵
      2. Pinheiro HS ,
      3. Mituiassu AM ,
      4. Carminatti M , et al
      . Urinary tract infection caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing bacteria in kidney transplant patients. Transplant Proc 2010;42:486–7.doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2010.02.002 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20304172
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. ↵
      2. Silva N ,
      3. Oliveira M ,
      4. Bandeira AC , et al
      . Risk factors for infection by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in a tertiary hospital in Salvador, Brazil. Braz J Infect Dis 2006;10:191–3.doi:10.1590/S1413-86702006000300007 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17568851
      OpenUrlPubMed
    28. ↵
      2. Levin PD ,
      3. Simor AE ,
      4. Moses AE , et al
      . End-Of-Life treatment and bacterial antibiotic resistance: a potential association. Chest 2010;138:588–94.doi:10.1378/chest.09-2757 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20472860
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    29. ↵
      2. Laupland KB ,
      3. Ross T ,
      4. Gregson DB
      . Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections: risk factors, outcomes, and the influence of methicillin resistance in Calgary, Canada, 2000-2006. J Infect Dis 2008;198:336–43.doi:10.1086/589717 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18522502
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    30. ↵
      2. Wu Y-H ,
      3. Chen P-L ,
      4. Hung Y-P , et al
      . Risk factors and clinical impact of levofloxacin or cefazolin nonsusceptibility or ESBL production among uropathogens in adults with community-onset urinary tract infections. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2014;47:197–203.doi:10.1016/j.jmii.2012.09.001 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23063776
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. ↵
      2. Zhang Q-R ,
      3. Chen H ,
      4. Liu B , et al
      . Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia in diabetics: a single-center, retrospective analysis. Chin Med J 2019;132:1429–34.doi:10.1097/CM9.0000000000000270 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31205100
      OpenUrlPubMed
    32. ↵
      2. Ren J ,
      3. Li X ,
      4. Wang L ,
      5. Liu M , et al
      . Risk factors and drug resistance of the MDR Acinetobacter baumannii in pneumonia patients in ICU. Open Med 2019;14:772–7.doi:10.1515/med-2019-0090
      OpenUrl
    33. ↵
      2. Benenson S ,
      3. Yinnon AM ,
      4. Schlesinger Y , et al
      . Optimization of empirical antibiotic selection for suspected gram-negative bacteraemia in the emergency department. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2005;25:398–403.doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2005.01.019
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    34. ↵
      2. Jääskeläinen IH ,
      3. Hagberg L ,
      4. Forsblom E , et al
      . Microbiological etiology and treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections in diabetic and nondiabetic patients in a population-based study. Open Forum Infect Dis 2017;4:ofx044. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofx044 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28470021
      OpenUrlPubMed
    35. ↵
      2. Chiquet C ,
      3. Maurin M ,
      4. Altayrac J , et al
      . Correlation between clinical data and antibiotic resistance in coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species isolated from 68 patients with acute post-cataract endophthalmitis. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015;21:592.e1–8.doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2015.01.028 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25680315
      OpenUrlPubMed
    36. ↵
      2. Malmartel A ,
      3. Ghasarossian C
      . Bacterial resistance in urinary tract infections in patients with diabetes matched with patients without diabetes. J Diabetes Complications 2016;30:705–9.doi:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2016.01.005 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26851821
      OpenUrlPubMed
    37. ↵
      2. Micek ST ,
      3. Wunderink RG ,
      4. Kollef MH , et al
      . An international multicenter retrospective study of Pseudomonas aeruginosa nosocomial pneumonia: impact of multidrug resistance. Crit Care 2015;19:219.doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0926-5
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    38. ↵
      2. Papazafiropoulou A ,
      3. Daniil I ,
      4. Sotiropoulos A , et al
      . Urinary tract infection, uropathogens and antimicrobial resistance in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2009;85:e12–13.doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2009.04.020 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19481285
      OpenUrlPubMed
    39. ↵
      2. Aswani SM ,
      3. Chandrashekar U ,
      4. Shivashankara K , et al
      . Clinical profile of urinary tract infections in diabetics and non-diabetics. Australas Med J 2014;7:29–34.doi:10.4066/AMJ.2014.1906 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24567764
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    40. ↵
      2. Bonadio M ,
      3. Costarelli S ,
      4. Morelli G , et al
      . The influence of diabetes mellitus on the spectrum of uropathogens and the antimicrobial resistance in elderly adult patients with urinary tract infection. BMC Infect Dis 2006;6:54. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-6-54 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16545130
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    41. ↵
      2. Colodner R ,
      3. Kometiani I ,
      4. Chazan B , et al
      . Risk factors for community-acquired urinary tract infection due to quinolone-resistant E. coli. Infection 2008;36:41–5.doi:10.1007/s15010-007-7083-y pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18193386
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    42. ↵
      2. Borer A ,
      3. Saidel-Odes L ,
      4. Eskira S , et al
      . Risk factors for developing clinical infection with carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in hospital patients initially only colonized with carbapenem-resistant K pneumoniae. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:421–5.doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2011.05.022 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21906844
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    43. ↵
      2. Colodner R ,
      3. Rock W ,
      4. Chazan B , et al
      . Risk factors for the development of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing bacteria in nonhospitalized patients. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2004;23:163–7.doi:10.1007/s10096-003-1084-2 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14986159
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    44. ↵
      2. Nakamura A ,
      3. Miyake K ,
      4. Misawa S , et al
      . Meropenem as predictive risk factor for isolation of multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Hosp Infect 2013;83:153–5.doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2012.10.005 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23201400
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    45. ↵
      2. Park SH ,
      3. Choi S-M ,
      4. Lee D-G , et al
      . Impact of extended-spectrum β-lactamase production on treatment outcomes of acute pyelonephritis caused by Escherichia coli in patients without health care-associated risk factors. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015;59:1962–8.doi:10.1128/AAC.04821-14
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    46. ↵
      2. Kim T ,
      3. Chong YP ,
      4. Park SY , et al
      . Risk factors for hospital-acquired pneumonia caused by carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria in critically ill patients: a multicenter study in Korea. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2014;78:457–61.doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2013.08.011
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    47. ↵
      2. Randrianirina F ,
      3. Vaillant L ,
      4. Ramarokoto CE , et al
      . Antimicrobial resistance in pathogens causing nosocomial infections in surgery and intensive care units of two hospitals in Antananarivo, Madagascar. J Infect Dev Ctries 2010;4:74–82.doi:10.3855/jidc.454 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20212337
      OpenUrlPubMed
    48. ↵
      2. Sherchan JB ,
      3. Gurung P ,
      4. Karkee P
      . Microbiological and clinical profile of uropathogenic Escherichia coli isolates in Kathmandu university hospital. J Nepal Health Res Counc 2016;14:33–8.
      OpenUrl
    49. ↵
      2. Søraas A ,
      3. Sundsfjord A ,
      4. Sandven I , et al
      . Risk factors for community-acquired urinary tract infections caused by ESBL-producing enterobacteriaceae--a case-control study in a low prevalence country. PLoS One 2013;8:e69581. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069581 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23936052
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    50. ↵
      2. Khurram IM ,
      3. Khan SA ,
      4. Khwaja AA
      . Risk factors for clinical infection in patients colonized with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). J Pak Med Assoc 2004;54:408–12.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    51. ↵
      2. Romaniszyn D ,
      3. Pobiega M ,
      4. Wójkowska-Mach J , et al
      . The general status of patients and limited physical activity as risk factors of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus occurrence in long-term care facilities residents in Krakow, Poland. BMC Infect Dis 2014;14:271. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-14-271 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24885020
      OpenUrlPubMed
    52. ↵
      2. Chong C-W ,
      3. Ormston VE ,
      4. Tan AB-H
      . Epidemiology of hand infection--a comparative study between year 2000 and 2009. Hand Surg 2013;18:307–12.doi:10.1142/S0218810413500317 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24156570
      OpenUrlPubMed
    53. ↵
      2. Ho HJ ,
      3. Tan MX ,
      4. Chen MI , et al
      . Interaction between antibiotic resistance, resistance genes, and treatment response for urinary tract infections in primary care. J Clin Microbiol 2019;57:e00143–19.doi:10.1128/JCM.00143-19 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31243084
      OpenUrlPubMed
    54. ↵
      2. Ramos Lázaro J ,
      3. Smithson A ,
      4. Jovè Vidal N , et al
      . Clinical predictors of ceftriaxone resistance in microorganisms causing febrile urinary tract infections in men. Emergencias 2018;30:21–7.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29437306
      OpenUrlPubMed
    55. ↵
      2. Briongos-Figuero LS ,
      3. Gómez-Traveso T ,
      4. Bachiller-Luque P , et al
      . Epidemiology, risk factors and comorbidity for urinary tract infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing enterobacteria. Int J Clin Pract 2012;66:891–6.doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2012.02991.x pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22897466
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    56. ↵
      2. Manzur A ,
      3. Vidal M ,
      4. Pujol M , et al
      . Predictive factors of meticillin resistance among patients with Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections at hospital admission. J Hosp Infect 2007;66:135–41.doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2007.03.015 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17513007
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    57. ↵
      2. García-Tello A ,
      3. Gimbernat H ,
      4. Redondo C , et al
      . Prediction of infection caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae: development of a clinical decision-making nomogram. Scand J Urol 2018;52:70–5.doi:10.1080/21681805.2017.1373698
      OpenUrl
    58. ↵
      2. Isendahl J ,
      3. Giske CG ,
      4. Tegmark Wisell K , et al
      . Risk factors for community-onset bloodstream infection with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae: national population-based case-control study. Clin Microbiol Infect 2019;25:1408–14.doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2019.04.002 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30986557
      OpenUrlPubMed
    59. ↵
      2. Baillargeon J ,
      3. Kelley MF ,
      4. Leach CT , et al
      . Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in the Texas prison system. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38:e92–5.doi:10.1086/383146
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    60. ↵
      2. Kistler JM ,
      3. Vroome CM ,
      4. Ramsey FV
      . Increasing multidrug antibiotic resistance in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections of the hand: a 10-year analysis of risk factors. Hand 2019;1558944719837693.
    61. ↵
      2. Rogers MAM ,
      3. Mody L ,
      4. Chenoweth C , et al
      . Incidence of antibiotic-resistant infection in long-term residents of skilled nursing facilities. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:472–5.doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2007.10.016 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18786449
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    62. ↵
      2. Terpenning MS ,
      3. Bradley SF ,
      4. Wan JY , et al
      . Colonization and infection with antibiotic-resistant bacteria in a long-term care facility. J Am Geriatr Soc 1994;42:1062–9.doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1994.tb06210.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    63. ↵
      2. Bailey AM ,
      3. Weant KA ,
      4. Baker SN
      . Prevalence and risk factor analysis of resistant Escherichia coli urinary tract infections in the emergency department. Pharm Pract 2013;11:96–101.doi:10.4321/S1886-36552013000200006
      OpenUrl
    64. ↵
      2. Madaras-Kelly KJ ,
      3. Remington RE ,
      4. Fan VS , et al
      . Predicting antibiotic resistance to community-acquired pneumonia antibiotics in culture-positive patients with healthcare-associated pneumonia. J Hosp Med 2012;7:195–202.doi:10.1002/jhm.942 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22038859
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    65. ↵
      2. Patolia S ,
      3. Abate G ,
      4. Patel N , et al
      . Risk factors and outcomes for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacilli bacteremia. Ther Adv Infect Dis 2018;5:11–18.doi:10.1177/2049936117727497 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29344356
      OpenUrlPubMed
    66. ↵
      2. Anesi JA ,
      3. Lautenbach E ,
      4. Nachamkin I , et al
      . Clinical and molecular characterization of community-onset urinary tract infections due to extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:1433–9.doi:10.1017/ice.2016.225
      OpenUrl
    67. ↵
      2. Hayakawa K ,
      3. Marchaim D ,
      4. Palla M , et al
      . Epidemiology of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis: a case-case-control study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013;57:49–55.doi:10.1128/AAC.01271-12 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23070173
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    68. ↵
      2. Hershow RC ,
      3. Khayr WF ,
      4. Schreckenberger PC
      . Ciprofloxacin resistance in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: associated factors and resistance to other antibiotics. Am J Ther 1998;5:213–20.doi:10.1097/00045391-199807000-00002 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10099061
      OpenUrlPubMed
    69. ↵
      2. Hsu DI ,
      3. Okamoto MP ,
      4. Murthy R , et al
      . Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: risk factors for acquisition and impact on outcomes. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005;55:535–41.doi:10.1093/jac/dki026 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15728150
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    70. ↵
      2. Saade EA ,
      3. Suwantara N ,
      4. Zabarsky TF , et al
      . Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Escherichia coli infections after transrectal biopsy of the prostate in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system. Pathog Immun 2016;1:243–57.doi:10.20411/pai.v1i2.123
      OpenUrl
    71. ↵
      2. Chitnis AS ,
      3. Caruthers PS ,
      4. Rao AK , et al
      . Outbreak of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae at a long-term acute care Hospital: sustained reductions in transmission through active surveillance and targeted interventions. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:984–92.doi:10.1086/667738
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    72. ↵
      2. Dan S ,
      3. Shah A ,
      4. Justo JA , et al
      . Prediction of fluoroquinolone resistance in gram-negative bacteria causing bloodstream infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016;60:2265–72.doi:10.1128/AAC.02728-15
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    73. ↵
      2. Ashley ESD ,
      3. Carroll DN ,
      4. Engemann JJ , et al
      . Risk factors for postoperative mediastinitis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38:1555–60.doi:10.1086/420819
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    74. ↵
      2. Wright SW ,
      3. Wrenn KD ,
      4. Haynes M , et al
      . Prevalence and risk factors for multidrug resistant uropathogens in ED patients. Am J Emerg Med 2000;18:143–6.doi:10.1016/S0735-6757(00)90005-6
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    75. ↵
      2. Wright SW ,
      3. Wrenn KD ,
      4. Haynes ML
      . Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole resistance among urinary coliform isolates. J Gen Intern Med 1999;14:606–9.doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.10128.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    76. ↵
      2. Chen LF ,
      3. Chiu C-T ,
      4. Lo J-Y , et al
      . Clinical characteristics and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of hospitalised patients with community-acquired urinary tract infections at a regional hospital in Taiwan. Healthc Infect 2014;19:20–5.doi:10.1071/HI13033
      OpenUrl
    77. ↵
      2. Chiu C-C ,
      3. Lin T-C ,
      4. Wu R-X , et al
      . Etiologies of community-onset urinary tract infections requiring hospitalization and antimicrobial susceptibilities of causative microorganisms. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2017;50:879–85.doi:10.1016/j.jmii.2016.08.008 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28087318
      OpenUrlPubMed
    78. ↵
      2. Apisarnthanarak A ,
      3. Kiratisin P ,
      4. Saifon P , et al
      . Clinical and molecular epidemiology of community-onset, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli infections in Thailand: a case-case-control study. Am J Infect Control 2007;35:606–12.doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2007.05.008 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17980240
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    79. ↵
      2. Pavlou S ,
      3. Lindsay J ,
      4. Ingram R , et al
      . Sustained high glucose exposure sensitizes macrophage responses to cytokine stimuli but reduces their phagocytic activity. BMC Immunol 2018;19:24. doi:10.1186/s12865-018-0261-0 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29996768
      OpenUrlPubMed
    80. ↵
      2. Lecube A ,
      3. Pachón G ,
      4. Petriz J , et al
      . Phagocytic activity is impaired in type 2 diabetes mellitus and increases after metabolic improvement. PLoS One 2011;6:e23366. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023366
    81. ↵
      2. Knapp S
      . Diabetes and infection: is there a link?--A mini-review. Gerontology 2013;59:99–104.doi:10.1159/000345107 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23182884
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    82. ↵
      2. Hodgson K ,
      3. Morris J ,
      4. Bridson T , et al
      . Immunological mechanisms contributing to the double burden of diabetes and intracellular bacterial infections. Immunology 2015;144:171–85.doi:10.1111/imm.12394 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25262977
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    83. ↵
      2. Geerlings SE ,
      3. Hoepelman AI
      . Immune dysfunction in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 1999;26:259–65.doi:10.1111/j.1574-695X.1999.tb01397.x pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10575137
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    84. ↵
      2. Donath MY ,
      3. Shoelson SE
      . Type 2 diabetes as an inflammatory disease. Nat Rev Immunol 2011;11:98–107.doi:10.1038/nri2925 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21233852
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    85. ↵
      2. Green WD ,
      3. Beck MA
      . Obesity altered T cell metabolism and the response to infection. Curr Opin Immunol 2017;46:1–7.doi:10.1016/j.coi.2017.03.008
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    86. ↵
      2. Grupper M ,
      3. Nicolau DP
      . Obesity and skin and soft tissue infections: how to optimize antimicrobial usage for prevention and treatment? Curr Opin Infect Dis 2017;30:180–91.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    87. ↵
      2. Zhen X ,
      3. Lundborg CS ,
      4. Sun X , et al
      . Economic burden of antibiotic resistance in ESKAPE organisms: a systematic review. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2019;8:137. doi:10.1186/s13756-019-0590-7 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31417673
      OpenUrlPubMed
    88. ↵
      2. Knight GM ,
      3. McQuaid CF ,
      4. Dodd PJ , et al
      . Global burden of latent multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: trends and estimates based on mathematical modelling. Lancet Infect Dis 2019;19:903–12.doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30307-X pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31281059
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    89. ↵
      2. Lipsky BA ,
      3. Berendt AR ,
      4. Cornia PB , et al
      . 2012 infectious diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:e132–73.doi:10.1093/cid/cis346 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22619242
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    90. ↵
      2. Gupta K ,
      3. Hooton TM ,
      4. Naber KG , et al
      . International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis in women: a 2010 update by the infectious diseases Society of America and the European Society for microbiology and infectious diseases. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52:e103–20.doi:10.1093/cid/ciq257
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    91. ↵
      1. European Association of Urology
      . Urological infections, 2019. Available: https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-on-Urological-infections-2019.pdf [Accessed 17 Jul 2020].

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @cecianza

    • Contributors RMC-L and AB-O conceived the idea. RMC-L and AB-O conducted the search, the screening and the final study selection. CA-R, GS-Z, DV-Z and JHZ-T extracted the information from the selected reports. RMC-L wrote the manuscript with support from CA-R, AB-O and CU-G. All author approved the submitted version. RMC-L, AB-O, CA-R, GS-Z, DV-Z and JHZ-T are collectively responsible for the accuracy of the information.

    • Funding RMC-L has been supported by a Strategic Award, Wellcome Trust-Imperial College Centre for Global Health Research (100693/Z/12/Z) and Imperial College London Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund (Global Health Clinical Research Training Fellowship) (294834/Z/16/Z ISSF ICL). RMC-L is supported by a Wellcome Trust International Training Fellowship (214185/Z/18/Z).

    • Disclaimer The funder had no role in this work and decision to submit for publication.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.